• Samuel Seabury Day – God Bless America

    Seabury
    When I walked into Grace Cathedral in San Francisco last year to begin a three week visit as part of my sabbatical, I was hugely struck by this scene that was one of the large murals on the right hand wall of the nave. It is a scene that takes place in Scotland – the very scene that ties the Scottish Episcopal Church to the US-based Episcopal Church.

    What’s going on in this picture is the consecration of Samuel Seabury as the first bishop for the American church and today – 14 November is the anniversary of that event which took place in Aberdeen in 1784.

    When I first became a Scottish Episcopalian, the consecration of Seabury perhaps had less significance than it does today. It is one of those events which one used to think of merely as a historical anomaly – the Church of England refusing for political reasons to consecrate a bishop of an independent American church and the Scottish Bishops willingly doing it instead. However the great upheavals in the Anglican Communion have taken place since then and Seabury’s consecration seems now to be much more significant.

    One of the things that bewilders American Episcopalians is why the Church of England seemed to abandon them during these upheavals. It is all the more painful for ordinary Episcopalians over there because they have looked with a fondness on so many aspects of what they believe English Anglican life to be. Indeed, one might suggest that this fondness might almost border on religious idolatry if religious idolatry wasn’t really very un-English in itself. I lost track of the number of people who sidled up to me in the states (even in uber-inclusive San Francisco) and enquired about my men and boys choir (which, of course doesn’t exist) or talked in devotedly hushed tones about that Christmas Service from King’s (which I actually think is a dreadful pickled mess of a liturgy). All things English have given many Episcopalians in the US a sense of rootedness which meant that they simple couldn’t comprehend the behaviour of the Church of England in general and Rowan Williams in particular over Gene Robinson’s consecration. (“He didn’t even come and see us….”)

    Of course, US people look over the Atlantic through rose-tinted glasses in the same way that if I’m not careful I look back with rainbow tinted lenses. If Americans realised that there is an uncomfortable presumption that Britain still Rules the Waves over here long after British dominance of the world then it all might make a bit more sense. More than that, I found that Americans generally believe American foreign policy to be a source of good in the world that others fail to see. The presumptions of a right to rule, a right to dominate, a right to use military might to establish economic superiority have some of their roots in a British colonial sensibility. America inherited from us more than a devotion to dull carol services.

    I was incredibly moved to see Samuel Seabury’s Scottish consecration represented so faithfully in SF. Those bishops gently resting their hands on his head and invoking the Holy Spirit represent a church that the C of E was literally not prepared to touch.

    Here’s to the links between the Episcopal churches of the US and Scotland. We love you now, even if the Church of England doesn’t. We loved you back then when the Church of Englandshire certainly didn’t.

    God bless America and God bless the church founded by Samuel Seabury with a helpful nudge from Scotland.

    And by way of marking the day, here’s an interview I did with Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori,  Presiding Bishop of the US-based church in 2010 when she visited our synod.

7 responses to “Revised Commenting Policy”

  1. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    I try to stick to the policy, whilst commenting on it.

    Most of it pretty understandable/standard. But,
    1.using Scripture as a weapon/quoting isolated verses. To a point I agree, but surely as well as the whole has to be understood as part of the whole, the whole is made us by parts. People misuse the Bible by taking a verse out of context, but they can easily be shown up. Otherwise we can’t use the Bible at all, other than saying – read all of it – there’s something that relates to what I’m saying.

    2. How does the disclaimer square with not being able to comment on PSA? Is that a given (i.e. that it’s nonsense)? Are other opinions banned? Like Roman Catholic views. Even if (highly unlikely) it’s a minority view, are other historically minority views banned (charismatics, baptists) and non-Christians and all liberals – as there views are pretty minority.

    3. Likening gay people to murderers. Unpleasant I agree. Although if (if I may quote a verse – but not to prove a point), this a reference to the 2nd 1/2 of Romans 1, the list includes people who disobey parents and the greedy. Presumably they’re still fair game?

    Just not sure this quite stacks. It’s why people ask, “What are you afraid of?” when it comes to PSA?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Darren – thank you for your interest. However. the question is not whether you think this commenting policy quite stacks but whether I do.

  2. John Sandeman Avatar
    John Sandeman

    Kelvin,
    When reading about theories of the atonement, there is a real risk of continually reading things that have been said many times over – as you point out. But can I credit you with something reasonably original? “We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it.” I have never worked out how to determine the proportions of Christians who believe the various atonement theories. Is there some research out there?

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Thanks John – I’m not aware of any research though I’d be interested in any there was. When I wrote that, I was thinking not simply of who believes what now but also of Christians through time. The history of these various ways of understanding the (or an) atonement is fairly well attested and it is clear that some have risen and fallen through time.

      My presumption is that most of the people in the great blocks of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (both now and through history) don’t believe in penal substitution – or at least, don’t believe it in the same way that a classical evangelical might believe in it as doctrine which must be personally accepted in order to lead to individual salvation. However, as you rightly point out, who believes what may not be so simple.

  3. Darren Moore Avatar
    Darren Moore

    There are a few bits of research on this, but mostly from the context of PSA
    E.g. Chapter 5 of “Pierced for our Transgressions”, by Jeffery, Ovey & Sach (IVP), which is a quite survey of theologians, east & west, a dozen of which are pre-reformation, starting with Justin Martyr.

    Henri Blocher, “Biblical Metaphors of the atonement”, in the journal of the evangelical theological society, 47 (2004), pp629-645
    “The divine substitution: The atonement in the Bible and history” by Shaw & Edwards (Day One).

    I get the your blog, your rules. Just doesn’t sound like decent is welcome.

    1. Darren Moore Avatar
      Darren Moore

      Bit of a PS,
      Robert Letham’s, “Through Western eyes”
      Looks at the differences & common ground with E-orthodoxy on lots of things, including salvation. Letham (Reformed), thinks there’s lots to get from the East re:-Trinity in worship, incarnational stuff, divination (rightly understood), but still holds that his “Reformed”

    2. Kelvin Avatar

      Well, Darren, I’ve found that there are quite a number of people who do want to meet and chat without the Atonement Thought Police stepping in to correct them all the time. In fact, though I expect you’ll be surprised to hear it, to those who don’t believe that particular doctrine, comments rather like your own can appear to be quite aggressive and verging on bullying.

      So, you may not feel welcome to behave exactly as you like here. You are not. And there’s a comminity of folk who like it that way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Blog trouble

    Have been having trouble with accessing my blog from home, which is now hopefully resolved. That is why there have been no updates. Went to see Angels in America at the Citz last night. Well the first half anyway. It was some of the best theatre I’ve seen – so much so that during the first…

  • A new bishop for Aberdeen and Orkney

    Warmest of wishes to the new Bishop Elect of Aberdeen and Orkney, the Very Rev Bob Gillies. Bob was my rector when I was exploring my vocation. He is one of the people without whom, I very certainly would not have been a priest. Here is how our first conversation began: Me: Er, excuse me,…

  • Riling the Nuns

    Oh no, I’ve managed to rile the nun-lobby in my previous post. You never know who you are going to upset when you start blogging. It was my comment about three nuns sitting around singing kum-by-yah that did it. And I was quoting someone else too. For the record, a good deal of my training…

  • Back to work

    Back to work yesterday. Today was spent answering or dealing with all but 12 of the 150 e-mails that were waiting for me. (None of those 150 were spam, either). I had a lovely holiday, thank you for asking. It is one’s duty to be able to say that you have enjoyed a lovely holiday…